1 In the morning of 5 May 2021, Huang Baoying, who was only 19 years old, was pronounced dead by paramedics who attended to her. Before Baoying died, she had been ill-treated and abused for months. She was deprived of food, confined to living in a toilet, chained to a railing there, and subjected to forced physical exertion and beatings.

2 The horrific events immediately preceding her death began on 4 May at 10 pm, when she was beaten with a wooden stick. Her head was held in a basin of water. She was tied up and pulled upright when she could not sit straight. Two persons took turns standing on her severely injured thighs. Salt was literally poured into her open wound. She was taken back to the toilet and put under a tap, then drenched with water, and left there for 15 minutes. Later, she was found unresponsive, and hours later, emergency medical assistance was finally sought, leading to the arrival of the paramedics.

3 Baoying died of malnutrition, sepsis and blunt force trauma. She weighed only 27.6 kg at her death. Her body had extensive bruising over her lower limbs. There was also bruising over her upper limbs. The back of her right leg had a chronic ulcer, meaning an open wound, with broken tissue and flesh. She died on the cusp of adulthood, at the hands of those she appeared to have looked up to because they, drunk with power and domination, tortured her in cruel and inhuman ways. One of the three who inflicted such cruelty on her, and who caused her death, is her own brother, Huang Bocan – the accused before me.

4 The accused has pleaded guilty to a charge of murder, the punishment for which is either death or life imprisonment and, if not punished with death, also caning. Both the Prosecution and the Defence have submitted that life imprisonment should be imposed. ¹ The Prosecution has also not sought caning. ²

5 On the basis of what is before me, and having regard to the sentencing positions of both parties, I sentence the accused to life imprisonment. In the remainder of this brief judgment, I will explain the main reasons for my determination.

6 The charge against the accused is one under s 300(c) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“Penal Code”):

The punishment prescribed under s 302(2) is death or imprisonment for life and, if the accused is not punished with death, he is also liable to caning.

7 Section 34 of the Penal Code provides that when a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if the act were done by him alone.

8 In the present case, while the accused has not contested the charge, under s 227(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed) (“CPC”), in a case where the accused pleads guilty to an offence punishable with death the court cannot record a plea of guilt unless evidence is led by the prosecution to prove its case at trial. Here, there is a Statement of Agreed Facts, consented to by the parties under s 267 of the CPC, and admitted to by the accused. I will not recite the whole of the facts, but note the main events briefly and will issue full grounds if required.

9 Baoying first became embroiled with the group responsible for her death in 2018 when she joined what was described as a “club”, but which was really a business run by 47-year-old Chee Mei Wan (“Chee”) selling products from Herbalife. ³ This club consisted of Chee, 67-year old Lim Peng Tiong (“Lim”), the 34-year-old accused and Baoying. Chee was their erstwhile coach, while Lim, the accused and Baoying were supposedly trainee coaches. ⁴ The accused and Chee became romantically involved sometime in September 2018. ⁵

10 In 2020, the parents of the accused and Baoying became concerned about the money spent on purchasing these products, which was about $1,000 to $2,000 per month. Disagreements arose, and eventually the accused and Baoying left their parents’ home when the father refused to transfer money to Baoying for the purchase of these products. The accused and Baoying moved in with Lim. Chee joined them shortly after. The group continued to sell the products. ⁶

11 In October 2020, Chee introduced fines to correct behaviour by Lim, later extending to the accused and Baoying. As fines were not considered sufficiently effective, physical punishment including squats and stress positions was introduced as well. Chee was not subject to punishment as she was regarded as the coach; punishment was inflicted only on the other three. However, the punishment became concentrated on Baoying from January to February 2021, as she was considered ineffective in selling the products. This ill-treatment further escalated from February to May 2021. ⁷

12 A WhatsApp group was created to monitor Baoying’s compliance. ⁸ The accused took control of Baoying’s money, giving her a small allowance each week. ⁹ She was made to do squats for as long as six hours. ¹⁰ The punishment then piled on and became worse. She was treated as less than human by the others. She was subject to starvation, initially limited to a single meal a day, but eventually was deprived of food for days, being given only water. ¹¹ On some occasions, she was pushed out of the flat without any money for food and forced to sleep in public spaces. Her hair was cut to humiliate her. ¹² She was also confined to the toilet for long periods, eating and sleeping there. After an occasion when she left the toilet to look for food, Baoying’s foot was chained to a railing by the accused acting on Chee’s instructions. ¹³

13 On top of the deprivation, she was subjected as well to direct physical violence with numerous beatings with a wooden stick on multiple occasions, as well as being slapped. Chee started the stream of violence by beating Baoying with a stick for accepting help from a stranger. ¹⁴ She thereafter had Lim and the accused beat Baoying, choosing who would carry out the violence and the amount to be inflicted. ¹⁵ The amount of violence increased significantly, with 100 to 200 or more blows being rained on Baoying each time. ¹⁶ On one occasion, a beating caused a wound which became infected. ¹⁷

14 This abuse and torture culminated in the night of horror recounted above. What remains to be added is that once the accused found Baoying unresponsive, he suggested taking her to the hospital but Chee dissuaded him from doing so for fear that the abuse would be discovered. ¹⁸ Various measures were agreed between them to try to cover the abuse and torture up. Finally, at about 5 am, Chee, Lim and the accused agreed on a false account to cover up what they had done. The accused deleted photographs, videos and audio recordings of the abuse. Then at 6.02 am he finally called for help. He was instructed to carry out CPR. However, when the paramedics arrived, as recounted above, Baoying was pronounced dead. ¹⁹

15 The severity of Baoying’s injuries and the cause of her death are evidenced by an autopsy which revealed extensive external injuries and severe malnutrition on her deceased body. Her weight had fallen from 48.8 kg in June 2020 to just 27.6 kg at the time of her death. The autopsy report certified her final cause of death to be severe malnutrition with sepsis and extensive blunt trauma. ²⁰

16 Lim pleaded guilty to a charge under s 304(a) read with s 34 of the Penal Code and was sentenced to 14 years and 11 months’ imprisonment. The case in respect of Chee is still pending.

17 While this case proceeded on an uncontested basis, with admission of the charge and the Statement of Agreed Facts, with no evidence adduced by the Defence, the court still has to satisfy itself on the establishment of the charge of murder with common intention under s 300(c) read with s 34 of the Penal Code. In brief, while s 300(c) is perhaps the most technically intricate of the murder provisions, I am satisfied that its elements were met in the present case. What must be made out is that the accused caused the death, intending to inflict the injury that was sustained, and that such injury is objectively sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death: Public Prosecutor v Azlin bte Arujunah [2022] 2 SLR 825 (“Azlin No. 1”) at [133]. Azlin No. 1 also established that what is intended to be caused may be a series of injuries rather than a single instance. For the purposes of establishing common intention, acts and intention may be aggregated.

18 On the facts here, I find that the accused had the requisite aggregated intention and action, being involved as he was in various acts of abuse and torture consisting of starvation, the infliction of blunt force trauma and neglect, causing bodily injury. The bodily injury, in the ordinary course of nature, led to Baoying’s death, as there was severe malnutrition with acceleration through sepsis and the excessive blunt force trauma. I would note that there may also be other alternative legal analyses which would lead to the same result. What is not in doubt is the guilt of the accused. I find that the charge made out beyond any reasonable doubt.

19 Both parties took the common position that life imprisonment should be imposed. ²¹ While the court has a discretion under the punishment provision, I would think that the court would rarely depart from the parties’ stance and impose the death penalty when it is not sought by the Prosecution. There may be such situations, but the case involving this specific accused person is not one of them.

20 In Public Prosecutor v Azlin Bte Arujunah [2022] 2 SLR 1410 (“Azlin No. 2”), which followed from the earlier Azlin No. 1 decision above, the Court of Appeal gave guidance on when the death penalty should be imposed under s 300(c). Harking back to the standard adopted in earlier cases, capital punishment is reserved for conduct outraging the feelings of the community. It is important to note that this is not an invitation for a survey of the visceral responses of members of the community – as was emphasised by the Court of Appeal in Azlin No. 2 at [20]–[21], this is a principled determination. The court needs to see if the offender has acted with a blatant disregard for human life, being aware at least of the possibility of death and either disregarding or being indifferent to it. Cruelty may evidence such disregard, but the court must look at all the circumstances. A blatant disregard may be shown by actions that are contrary to a protective relationship, such as that of a parent to a child. On the facts before it, the Court of Appeal found insufficient evidence to make out such knowledge of the likelihood of death beyond a reasonable doubt.

21 Here, while much can be inferred from the description of the facts contained in the Statement of Agreed Facts admitted by the accused, such inferences could not be said to have established his knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt. As both the Prosecution and the Defence have argued for life imprisonment, the Statement of Agreed Facts before this court does not contain such facts sufficient to show such knowledge. On what is before me, I do not have any evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt such knowledge, and indeed such disregard or indifference, as to call for the imposition of the death penalty. Also as raised by the Defence, there is evidence to show that the accused did not contemplate Baoying’s death, as he, wrongly as it was, thought he was helping her be a better person. This clearly misguided and indeed perverse motivation is to my mind not an excuse for what he did, but it did go at least to reinforce the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence of knowledge or disregard by the accused of the likelihood of Baoying’s death. I cannot therefore on a principled basis decide on a sentence of death, even if I wanted to depart from the sentencing submissions made by the parties.

22 On the evidence before me, I thus impose life imprisonment.

23 As for caning, I do not consider it necessary given that life imprisonment has already been imposed. I had some concerns about parity, with Lim having a sentence of imprisonment added on in lieu of caning, but he was not sentenced to life imprisonment. I also had concerns of parity with drug cases, specifically s 33B(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973, but as submitted by the Prosecution, in that instance, caning is mandatory. In the circumstances therefore, no caning is imposed on the accused.

24 The sentence of life imprisonment is backdated to the date of arrest, 5 May 2021.

25 This was a sad case. A brother joined others in murdering his sister through abuse and torture. I cannot imagine what Baoying would have gone through in those months. She is dead, and cannot return. The accused must face the consequences of his actions. I will now address the accused directly:

Mr Huang, you have been convicted on your plea of guilt of the charge of murdering Baoying, your 19-year-old sister. Your cruel abuse and torture caused her suffering and took her life. Baoying would have looked up to you, she would have sought your protection and nurturing, and she would have cared for you. Yet you joined with others and treated her as less than human, less than a living being. You deserve to be put away for a long time, and you deserve the punishment imposed by the State. You are sentenced to life imprisonment. I hope you will remember always what you have done to your sister and reflect on that.